Radfem2012 and Conway Hall’s ‘ethics’

Following on the official announcement from Conway Hall yesterday, here is a more detailed examination of their decision to reverse the booking for the Radfem2012 conference.

Statement Regarding RadFem 2012

In consultation with the organisers of RadFem 2012 and our legal advisors, Conway Hall has decided not to allow the booking in July 2012 to proceed. This is because it does not conform to our Terms and Conditions for hiring rooms at Conway Hall. In addition, we are not satisfied it conforms with the Equality Act (2010), or reflects our ethos regarding issues of discrimination.

11 Sex
In relation to the protected characteristic of sex—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a man or to a woman;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons of the same sex.

Of course 11(a) is rubbish with the inclusion of ‘man’ and an obvious concession to MRAs who cry ‘reverse sexism!’ as if women actually have any real power over men in this society. Section 11(b) refers to ‘persons who share the same sex’ (this is separate from ‘gender’, ie transgender protections).

Back to Conway Hall:

We had sought assurances that the organisers would allow access to all, in order to enable the event to proceed at the venue. We also expressed concern that particular speakers would need to be made aware that whilst welcoming progressive thinking and debate, Conway Hall seeks to uphold inclusivity in respect of both legal obligations and as a principle.

“Access to all” – this statement could also be taken as ‘including men’ as well as ‘transgender’ – and Conway Hall will not allow an event to take place unless everyone and anyone can attend. If they allowed a Jewish event at the venue, then I gather that the Jewish group must allow their event to be open to Muslims, Christians and Athiests, lest the event be cancelled? Conway Hall would not have pulled this stunt on any of those groups. It also means that Conway Hall have made made a de facto decision regarding the Equality Act, that no ‘protected category’ is allowed to meet without others – either other protectected categories or not. This means that Transgender groups cannot meet alone either, without the presence of say, Radfems. The Radfems look forward to the mandatory invitation to the next Transgender event. See how that works both ways? Protest us, we will protest you – except that Radfems acknowledge Transgender groups’ rights to meet alone, without Radfems. Conway Hall have set a precedent, either that, or grounds for the first challenge of the Equality Act, as well as compensation or legal action against Conway Hall, particularly over any losses that may arise or are incurred for the organisers of the conference because of the nature of the late change.

Then comes the part about ‘particular speakers’, and by that they meant Professor Sheila Jeffreys of the University of Melbourne, who wrote in the Guardian on Wednesday that Conway Hall had informed the organisers that she was banned from the venue on the grounds that she “fostered hatred” and “actively discriminates”. Those stated grounds actually open up Conway Hall to legal action from Professor Jeffreys, they would need to be able to prove those grounds in a court of law. ‘Fosters hatred’ is a dubious accusation, there is no actual proof except personal rhetoric from Transgender activists and their supporters – and given that many Transgender activists wish that Radfems would “die in a fire”, it seems easier to prove that Transgender activists actually foster hatred towards Radfems – we have the actualproof. The charge of ‘actively discriminates’ is also bogus, given that the Equality Act allows for “Positive Action” for groups with ‘protected characteristics’ to further their cause. I will cover the Equality Act in more detail in a subsequent post.

Returning to Conway Hall’s announcement:

That said, we recognise the breadth of debate to be had amongst the feminist and transgender communities and it is our sincere hope that there will be constructive and positive dialogue on these matters going forward.

Well apparently according to Conway Hall and Transgender activists, we are not even allowed to get together for a ‘pre-meeting’ in preparation for this ‘debate’. However, Radfems have had dialogue with Transgender activists over many years online – including one Radfem who actually lives with a transwoman wrote a ‘building bridges’ type post a number of years ago. The result was that Transgender activists accused her of ‘hate speech’ and a number of other blatantly false accusations – it became clear to all Radfems at that time that reasonable dialogue was not an option with Transgender activists, we were given the ‘option’ of 100% compliance with the Transgender agenda, or STFU. That sounded a lot like the ‘range of options’ that we get from patriarchy and MRAs (Male Rights Activists), so pardon me for my skepticism for ‘positive dialogue’. The Radfem post in question was taken down due to the massive hate campaign against the Radfem for daring to build bridges. We have tried reasonable dialogue. It failed. And since that time, Transgender activists have become even more extreme and open in their hatred towards Radical Feminists – the expression “die in a fire” towards Radfems is now so commonplace, they lazily reduce it to “DIAF”.

In response to Sheila Jeffreys’ online Guardian article in their ‘Comment is free’ section, dated 29th May 2012, we would like it to be known that Conway Hall has in the past made clear that speakers / attendees at events for other hirers will not be permitted where we have felt that these individuals have expressed and may express (on our premises) views which conflict with our ethos, principles, and culture; the reference to David Irving was simply one of the examples given.

An attempted backtracking by Conway Hall in the comparison of David Irving, Holocaust Denier, and Professor Jeffreys. The reference to Irving (a right wing, Nazi supporter, male supremacist and racist) probably gives Jeffreys grounds for a slander suit against Conway Hall. Professor Jeffreys is a professor in Political Sciences who speaks/writes on a wide range of (radical-) feminist topics, not just transgenderism.

But are Conway Hall’s hands completely clean and ‘ethical’? In the 1970s Conway Hall were more than happy for far-right extreme-racist group the National Front to use its hall. In 1974 there was clash in Red Lion Square between the National Front and various opposing groups including Maxists and Socialists. Radical feminism has much in common with Socialism (and the class analysis of Maxism), but with a female focus. So it seems that Conway Hall has no problem with far-right extreme-racist groups (who were also anti-Abortion), but does have a problem with more equitable groups like Socialists or Radical Feminists. If Conway Hall’s political sympathies were more well known, then perhaps the organisers probably would not have even considered the venue. We do not consider far-right, racist, male-supremacist groups to be ethical, in fact they are the exact opposite of what Radical Feminism is about.

There was good reason why we wanted Radfem2012 to be female-only – and it was not due to ‘hatred of Transgenders’. Radical Feminism covers the lived experiences of (born-) females and their experiences of male violence and sexual assault. One key area is giving a voice to the survivors of prostitution to share their experiences. Other survivors of rape and domestic violence also frequently share their experiences. Women’s health, maternity, childbirth and child rearing, and abortion are also frequent topics of discussion. The Equality Act does allow for females to talk about these female-only issues without having transwomen present (more about the EA in a subsequent post), so it is Conway Hall here in the wrong, contravening our right as females to talk about these issues without transwomen or men present.

Another complaint by Transgender activists and their supporters was that Transgendered persons must be present if Transgenderism is discussed so that their point of view is taken into account. Firstly, Transgenderism was barely a feature on the proposed agenda:

Indicative conference topics include:

What is radical feminism?

‘Women together for liberation’: building an anti-racist, anti-capitalist movement for all women

Prostitution: hearing the voices of exited women

Lesbian feminism

‘Memory-bearing women’: sharing knowledge across feminist generations

Ending male violence against women

Radical feminist critiques of gender and queer theory

Workshops for girls (early-mid teens)

Feminism and anti-militarism

Single mothers challenging patriarchy

Mobilising our rage: strategies and organising

A lot of those topics are of no interest to transwomen, and have their roots in the unique reproductive vulnerabilities of being born female. The ‘critique of gender and queer theory’ would be inclusive of gender role analysis, harking back to Second Wave Feminist views of how narrowly defined gender roles are the method by which sexism and discrimination is enacted upon females. It also appears to be a theory-based proposal, a discussion of ideas and viewpoints – according to Conway Hall and Transgender activists, we are not allowed to discuss such theories without Transgender activists being present – I gather they think they are allowed to discuss such theories without Radfems being present? That is a double-standard.

Transgender activists feel they are entitled to have extremely dubious transwoman-only workshops such as the “Cotton Ceiling“, a workshop designed to overcome the “barriers” of lesbians resisting having sex with transwomen – this was not transwomen seeking all sexual partners (ie hetersexual men, but specifically lesbians). That is specific, and very much a rape-culture workshop, and an aim which we find to be abhorrent.

Radical Feminists are a relatively small group, worldwide there are maybe a thousand, perhaps even a couple of thousand, but we now see the vast numbers that oppose our female-centred views:

Transgender activists

Transgender-supporting Liberal Feminists

The male-dominated letters of the LGBT (except Lesbians, who make up many of our number)

On GenderTrender’s thread, many of the hateful comments are being censored (with a replacement YouTube), but a few snippets are visible to give you the idea. The sexism and hatred directed at Radical Feminists is extreme – being called “cunts” and “gashes“, with the wish that we would “all get uterine cancer”.

The catalyst for the unleashing of this vile sexism and hatred towards us was Conway Hall’s supposed ‘equality’ and ‘inclusiveness’ position, initially trying to compare Professor Jeffreys to a Holocaust Denier, and indirectly trying to compare Radical Feminists with a ‘hate group’. That is somewhat libelous.

This is all part of the extreme backlash against feminism, particularly the gains made by the Second Wave Feminists for women’s rights, anti-discrimination laws, and victim support services. In the 1990s, pornography and sexual objectification in the media became mainstream as one form of the backlash. Now ten to twenty years later, the mainstream view is that Transgender rights trump sex-protection rights for females, an issue we are apparently not even allowed to discuss by ourselves.

Radical Feminism is the continuation of Second Wave Feminism. For us to be labelled ‘discriminatory’ or a ‘hate group’ is a sign that the mainstream disapproves of the Second Wave Feminism gains for women.

Out of the Second Wave school of thought came the critique of prostitution as a form of sexual slavery – indeed sex trafficking remains a constant problem in legalised, semi-legalised and illegal areas of prostitution. Radical Feminists have an abolitionist position on prostitution and pornography because of the inherent subjugation of females as a class, even those not directly involved in these ‘industries’. It is an unpopular view with the mainstream, much like the slavery abolitionists of the 18th and 19th centuries, the progressive roots on which Conway Hall was founded. Women were also a part of slavery abolition, but they have been footnoted or erased from mainstream history.

At least we know where you stand on women’s rights Conway Hall, you are against them, unless opposing views are present to monitor or disrupt the discussions.
How very ‘progressive’ of you. Not.

ETA: A great article on why women-only spaces are critical to feminism. Although it does not specify Transgender, there are many parallels with males in feminist spaces, particularly with Trans-activists that wish to reframe the feminist agenda to be primarily about Transgender, and not about the born-female experiences and reality. ETA – I have removed the link for the time being – the site was hacked, and it is not advised that you visit it, in case of possible infections of trojans.

Share this:

Like this:

41 thoughts on “Radfem2012 and Conway Hall’s ‘ethics’”

That is an excellent account of what’s happened during my involvement, Davina. I shall be sure and link it to Conway Hall when i reply to their email to me explaining why they don’t think i am entitled to a safe women-only space with other females who share my life-long oppression.

“If they allowed a Jewish event at the venue, then I gather that the Jewish group must allow their event to be open to Muslims, Christians and Athiests, lest the event be cancelled? “

I would be surprised to find it’s not a sue-able offense for them to claim that women must “include every group” while they do not require the same for other groups. I thought they were trying to prevent a lawsuit?

Here, the hypocrisy of Conway Hall – who have no problem hosting an event like this Muslim one, which is bound to be either segregated, or men-only – if anyone has any more details, please let me know.

I call it malestream view which continues to dominate and his tory which continues to exclude women’s herstory. Or to put it another way – male supremacist system is very much ‘alive and kicking’ in its determination to silence radical feminists who dare to challenge male supremacist hypocrisy.

Male Supremacy and here I mean those males who hold positions of power and influence have always worked with other diametrically different male dominant political groups in order to maintain male domination over women. Conway Hall is no different in putting men’s rights (sic) first and womens’ rights? Men on the right and left of politics continue to collude in an all out effort to totally eliminate radical feminism because these males are terrified their power over women will finally be eliminated. Conway Hall is no exception, given their historical record is appalling and is diametrically opposite to their mandate which is supposedly opposed to extremism and fascism – but men commonly state ‘do as we tell you women because we have different laws for men.’

This widespread misogyny – male hatred towards women is happening because radical feminists refuse to submit to male pseudo authority. Unfortunately those female handmaidens will rue the day they sided with those women-hating males because the trans activists are in league with the MRAS and their sole focus is on reducing all women to non-human status.

Excellent article which sets out very clearly the his tory of men’s hypocritical claims.

Am looking forward to Conway Hall facilitating an event which is open to Jewish, muslims, christians, whites, non-whites, fascists, communists, marxists, conservatives, labour, liberal democrat, freemasons and most importantly all women. Because then and only then can Conway Hall claim ‘we do not believe in events which specifically exclude certain individuals or groups.’

Methinx Conway Hall has just taken the “path of least resistance” and don’t really care, like with that final snark sort-of saying ‘I wish you two groups would just learn to get along’.. *sheesh* – They’ve weighed up which group is likely to cause Conway hall the most grief if offended, and since the trans have the numbers, the public support and the money – they get their own way. Radfems can whine, but they have no numbers, money or public support, so offending us is the least likely to cause them any trouble.

Yeah I agree, they are banking on women to just quietly walk away and never be heard of again.

The issue of women not being able to fully define who they have at their meetings has made some fencesitters already see the light, not just the Conway Hall one, but the Women Up North Manchester workshops which were OPEN to transwomen, all except the sexual assault survivors workshop – and that shows that there is no compromise to be had with transactivists (even though the exclusion is allowed in the Equality Act for that purpose).

The reason radfems have a problem with transactivists (not necessarily individual transwomen btw) is because we get the ultimatum of 100% pro-trans access-all-areas, or they will cause trouble and shut us down (accurate discription of the events of this week for both events). The ultimatum is exactly what we have lived our whole lives with – 100% men’s way or be punished. This is what we mean when we say that transactivists act like men, and actually they act a lot like MRAs, an extreme misogynist group.

Having said that, there is a small minority of transwomen who do actually understand the need for female-only spaces and respect our need for that – them I can talk with – but as for the extremely vocal transactivists (many being late transitioners that have lived most of their lives as men) – nope, no negotiation to be had there. The lack of respect of women’s boundaries is what men have done to us for centuries.

Yes, exactly. Also as zeph has said, following on logically from Marilyn French’s analysis of herstory – whenever the social status of women in a society or empire, has risen to a point where women have some limited independence, patriarchy has always sent in their eunuchs to re-assert control over women.

The most worrying example of that is that transactivists set or redefine the feminist agenda (not radical feminism though), and the libfems don’t seem to be waking up to this.

Transactivists are now asserting that to talk about women’s reproductive matters (and body parts) is “transphobic” and “boring”. With reproductive freedom for females still constantly under threat (particularly in the US, but a bit too here in the UK) it is not something that is now unimportant – it is as important as it has ever been. So undermining and redefining feminism (for born-females) is one huge issue, and the points are covered in that great link at the end of the post on why separatist space is needed, even though it does not specifically apply to trans, all the same things are happening as men coming in and redefining feminism.

The other point though, most really are not eunuchs – only in the figurative sense, not the literal sense. GRS is not essential for obtaining a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate). A lot of people, libfems included, are under the impression that surgery is both essential and desired by all of them. It’s not.

Conway Hall are treating us like squabbling children, and are relying on the usual behaviour of women, including radfems. Go away and hide in the closet. Women aren’t likely to chain ourselves to the doors or something like that to cause a public “scene”, like the trans would.

Thanks Dittany (just including the picture here to draw attention to it)

They didn’t mind a bunch of paedophiles meeting there back in the 1970s.

Police hold back outraged mothers as they attack members of the Paedophile Information Exchange with eggs, stink-bombs and rotten fruit as they arrived for their first open meeting in London at the Conway Hall in Red Lion Square, Holborn.

So, they don’t mind paedophiles or extremely rightwing racists – but they will not allow a small bunch of radfems, from a ‘protected characteristic’ category of the Equality Act, to meet there. The difference is that we are from an discriminated-against class, and NOT part of the oppressor group – be we are not allowed to meet without the male-born (part of the oppressor group). *nice*

Sorry, I realise the police weren’t actually *attacking* the mothers… but they weren’t allowing them to attack paedophiles…
Got to hand it to patriarchal justice… can’t have mothers attacking baby rapists now can we…

Our desire to meet alone without the male-born present is the same as if a BME group wanted to meet without white people. That is perfectly acceptable (and encouraged) by us – but Conway Hall would likely stop their meeting because whites were not there to spy on the meeting.

It’s really not that hard. Researchers show that even a three-year-old child knows the difference between a male and a female with near-perfect accuracy.

“Trans women” are born beneficiaries of the patriarchy: males. In fact, many (most? all?) are MORE eager to uphold the patriarchy than many other (non-”trans”) males, because they depend on misogynist sex-role stereotypes in order to complete their “transition” into the imaginary “woman” of their dreams.

The difference between male and female, between “trans” and real women are not mere details when half of the human race is being systematically oppressed by the other half. Sex matters. Socialization matters. Being born into the raping class vs. the raped class matters. Male privilege matters.

Pretending that sex doesn’t matter shows an incomplete understanding of what women’s oppression is and what women need to do to end it.

False “coalitions” have been the downfall of the left for decades. The way forward is not pretending that men with gender identity disorder are our “sisters” in our fight to liberate women. They quite literally don’t have any skin in the game — in fact they benefit directly from the rigid enforcement of misogynist “gender” roles. If you eliminate “gender” you eliminate “gender identity” which obviates the very idea of “trans” because changing sex is literally impossible.

Pretending to believe that “trans women” are really women would be insanity for the women’s liberation movement. Self-destructive insanity. If all a person has to do to become a woman is change his clothes and hairstyle, then what does “woman” even mean? “Trans” erases women and white-washes our thousands of years of REAL OPPRESSION by making womanhood into a choice, something you order off a menu, a game you play when you’re bored, a sexual fetish, a garment you can take on and off at will. I call total bullshit on the whole farce.

If “trans women” (or any other male) wants to support women, he should do so on OUR terms and frankly, “trans women” should start by de-transitioning or at the very least respecting our boundaries and rights.

In the activist “victory” you’ve outlined above, feminists would stop centralizing the liberation of females. That is, we would cease being feminists and become “humanists”. Radical Feminists centralize female concerns and female liberation. We are a women’s liberation movement.

Gender purity arguments? Radical feminists do not support gender, of the “pure” (?) or “impure” variety (whatever that means). Gender oppresses females.

“..once you start deciding who is biologically pure enough to be part of any community..” The Lesbian community is comprised of female homosexuals. Not heterosexual males. Female homosexuals have a right to Lesbian spaces and gatherings as we so choose.

“does the “radfem” community really accept all biologically born women feminists..?” Do we accept that liberal and other branches of feminism exist? Of course. Is every feminist a Radical Feminist? Of course not. Can we ally with other feminists on certain issues? Of course. A pro-pornography “fun-fem” would NOT be a Radical Feminist.

Your comment above, which instructs women that we should stop centralizing the liberation of females in our activism, that we should stop holding conferences and organizing events for females, that lesbians should not hold lesbian-only events, does NOTHING to support women’s liberation whatsoever.

You would like to see us focus on, and direct our energy to male political and economic justice issues instead of female liberation. That is not going to happen. But there are a ton of women out there, (including some that call themselves feminist) who are willing to do so. What is very telling is the level of outrage (including death threats, harassment, no-platforming) directed at a fairly small number of women who choose to prioritize the emancipation of females in their politics. And the homophobia and misogyny on display by those who claim lesbians discriminate against males and need to be “corrected” is very telling as well.

We as women (and feminists) are not allowed to criticise men, or we are called ‘manhaters’.

We as feminists are not allowed to criticise transgenderism, or we are called ‘transphobic’. If transwomen were truly lower down on patriarchy’s hierarchy as they claim, then the accusation could not be used so freely to stop us from talking about it.

Sheikh ABU HAMZA left , fundamentalist Muslim cleric , head of religious and political affairs for the Supporters of Sharia, and Haroon Rashid Aswat Aswad , believed to be the mastermind behind the July 7th bombings in London, speaking at a news conference at the Conway Hall in London. Hamza was arrested Monday March 15, 1999, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in an early morning police raid.

I guess it’s because terrorists and paedophiles are men.. and racism is rooted in patriarchy.. so those three groups feed off each other because without women’s subordination they wouldn’t be able to get up to their shennanigens . So keeping women down is what they have in common, and is vital. SO yes, the only true opposition to the status quo, the establishment and the system is radical feminism.

Conway Hall could hardly have been unaware of this extremely controversial figure when their venue was booked for the press conference shown in that photograph. Some quotes from Abu Hamza’s preachings: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4690084.stm

if this doesn’t wake up intersex people to see what Trans is doing to women, Then I don’t know what will it take for them to see the delusions that trans are pulling on women. I see why Intersex and Radfems need to join forces and get rid of the Trans from our respective communities.

I think if men are pushing laws on women and birth control. I believe it’s now time women push laws on men who want access to taxpayer funded Viagra, Condoms or any male impotence pills to require them to see a video or physical exam

Ahhhh… the fresh, hot textual diarrhea of Paul Elam. *sniff sniff* It’s only slightly stinkier than a large bowl of festering dog vomit.

All of that ‘tude he’s giving in that post is laughable, considering the unavoidable fate of his doomed website. Yep, once you get put on that hate group list, it’s all downhill from there. Too bad, Paulie.:D But that’s what you get when you advocate rape & employment discrimination (among other things). Dirty mascunazi trash.

I agree, they aren’t picky about the MALES who go on their platform or hire their hall – but when it comes to ‘uppity women’ who want freedom from male domination – suddenly they decide that’s a bad thing.